Savas writes;
Mark Baker talks about the WSDL WG’s decision not to require the name of an operation in the body of a SOAP message
Just to be clear, the issue wasn’t about placing the operation name anyplace in particular. It was just that I wanted a self-descriptive path to find it, no matter where it’s located. That could be in the body, the headers, the underlying transfer protocol, in a spec, or in a WSDL document someplace.
Of course, I think having the method name in the SOAP message is harmful. I’d much rather it were inherited from the underlying transfer (not transport!) protocol, at least when used with a transfer protocol.
And to respond to this comment of his;
Web Services are all about exchanging information and not identifying methods, operations, functions, procedures that must be called. What services do with the information they receive, through message exchanges, it’s up to those services.
I’d just say that, well, at some layer you have to worry about operations. If Web services aren’t that layer, then whatever goes on top of them will have to worry about it. And my understanding was that Web services wanted to tackle this layer. FWIW, I think Jim and I agreed on this in a recent private exchange.
no comment until now